{"id":"blood-donation-limitation-of-liability-act-1985","name":"Blood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985","slug":"blood-donation-limitation-of-liability-act-1985","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"wa","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":30064,"registerId":"wa-blood-donation-limitation-of-liability-act-1985-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Blood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985","content":"![Crest]()Western Australia\n\nBlood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985\n\nWestern Australia\n\nBlood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985\n\nContents\n\nPart I — Preliminary\n\n1. Short title 2\n\n2. Commencement 2\n\n3. Terms used 2\n\n3A. This Act not to apply to or in relation to liability under *Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023* 4\n\nPart II — Initial limitation of liability\n\n4. AIDS related actions to which this Part applies 5\n\n5. AIDS related actions against Society, hospitals etc., defences to 5\n\n6. AIDS related actions against people administering blood, defences to 8\n\n7. Donors, liability of 10\n\nPart III — Subsequent limitation of liability\n\n8. AIDS related actions to which this Part applies 11\n\n9. AIDS related actions against Society, hospitals etc., defences to 11\n\n10. AIDS related actions against people administering blood, defences to 15\n\n11. Donor declarations, before whom to be made 18\n\n12. Donors, liability of 19\n\n13. Evidentiary provisions for certain AIDS related actions 19\n\n14. Regulations 19\n\nNotes\n\nCompilation table 21\n\nOther notes 22\n\nDefined terms\n\n  \n\nWestern Australia\n\nBlood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985\n\nAn Act to limit liability in respect of the transmission of the disease known as acquired immune deficiency syndrome through the transfusion of blood and blood products and for purposes connected therewith or incidental thereto.\n\n## Part I — Preliminary\n\n##### 1. Short title\n\nThis Act may be cited as the *Blood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985*.\n\n##### 2. Commencement\n\nThis Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 30 June 1985.\n\n##### 3. Terms used\n\nIn this Act, unless the contrary intention appears —\n\n  AIDS means disease known as acquired immune deficiency syndrome in any of its stages, including its antibodies and its virus;\n\n  AIDS related action means action brought by or on behalf of —\n\n(a) a person who claims to have contracted AIDS —\n\n(i) by reason of having been administered blood supplied by the Society or a hospital or a blood product derived from blood so supplied; or\n\n(ii) by reason of having been involved in the taking, testing, preparation, processing, handling, supplying, or administering to a patient of blood supplied by the Society or a hospital or a blood product derived from blood so supplied; or\n\n(iii) from a person who contracted AIDS in a circumstance specified in subparagraph (i) or (ii);\n\nor\n\n(b) a dependant or the estate of a person who dies as a result of having contracted AIDS in a circumstance specified in paragraph (a);\n\n  approved means approved by the Chief Health Officer by instrument in writing for the purposes of this Act;\n\n  blood product includes blood component;\n\n  Chief Health Officer has the meaning given in the *Public Health Act 2016* section 4(1);\n\n  Department means the department of the Public Service of the State principally assisting the Minister in the administration of this Act;\n\n  donor means person who gives blood for therapeutic purposes to the Society or a hospital;\n\n  donor declaration means declaration made by a donor in the form prescribed or adopted by regulations made under section 14;\n\n  hospital, in relation to —\n\n(a) a public hospital as defined in the *Health Services Act 2016* section 6, means the health service provider for that hospital;\n\n(b) a hospital other than a public hospital referred to in paragraph (a), means person conducting or managing that other hospital;\n\nmedical practitioner means a person registered under the *Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia)* in the medical profession;\n\n  Society means the society incorporated by Royal Charter under the name of the Australian Red Cross Society;\n\nTransmissible Diseases Regulations means regulations that —\n\n(a) are made under the *Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911* or the *Public Health Act 2016*; and\n\n(b) consist of or include provisions that provide for or require a person donating blood to make a declaration.\n\n[Section 3 amended: No. 103 of 1994 s. 18; No. 22 of 2008 Sch. 3 cl. 6; No. 35 of 2010 s. 36; No. 11 of 2016 s. 285(2); No. 19 of 2016 s. 110 and 281.]\n\n##### 3A. This Act not to apply to or in relation to liability under *Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023*\n\n(1) Nothing in this Act applies to or in relation to any liability of the Society, a hospital, a medical practitioner or any other person under the *Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023* to pay compensation, and to pay for the provision of other benefits, in relation to the injury or death, as a result of the contraction of AIDS, of a worker who was at the relevant time employed by or in the Society, hospital, medical practitioner or other person.\n\n(2) In subsection (1) —\n\n  injury and worker have the respective meanings given by the *Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023*.\n\n[Section 3A inserted: No. 52 of 1987 s. 4; amended: No. 42 of 2004 s. 156 and 174; No. 11 of 2016 s. 285(3); No. 21 of 2023 s. 709(2).]\n\n## Part II — Initial limitation of liability\n\n##### 4. AIDS related actions to which this Part applies\n\nThis Part applies only to or in relation to an AIDS related action arising out of —\n\n(a) the administration during the period commencing on 30 June 1985 and ending immediately before the day fixed by proclamation for the purposes of this section 1 to a person of —\n\n(i) blood supplied by the Society or a hospital; or\n\n(ii) a blood product derived from blood referred to in subparagraph (i);\n\nor\n\n(b) the involvement during the period referred to in paragraph (a) of a person in the taking, testing, preparation, processing, handling, supplying or administering of blood or a blood product referred to in that paragraph.\n\n##### 5. AIDS related actions against Society, hospitals etc., defences to\n\n(1) Subject to this section, in an AIDS related action against —\n\n(a) the Society or a hospital it is a defence that —\n\n(i) the Society or the hospital, as the case requires —\n\n(A) obtained from the donor of the relevant blood within the 12 hours immediately preceding the donation of that blood a declaration made under the Transmissible Diseases Regulations; and\n\n(B) caused, before the relevant blood was supplied to be administered to a person, or to be used in the preparation of a blood product to be administered to a person, a sample of that blood to be tested, using such equipment and in accordance with such a method as were then required by good medical practice, for the presence of AIDS, and that the result of that test was negative;\n\nand\n\n(ii) neither the Society nor the hospital, as the case requires, nor any employee of, or person working without payment for, the Society or the hospital nor any other person who took blood from a donor on behalf of the Society or the hospital was guilty of any negligence or wilful misconduct in respect of the taking or testing of the relevant blood or of the storage, preparation, processing, handling, supplying, labelling or other documenting, or administering of that blood or of the relevant blood product derived from that blood, as the case requires;\n\nor\n\n(b) an employee or person referred to in paragraph (a)(ii) it is a defence that that employee or person was not guilty of any negligence or wilful misconduct in respect of the taking or testing of the relevant blood or of the storage, preparation, processing, handling, supplying, labelling or other documenting, or administering of that blood or of the relevant blood product derived from that blood, as the case requires.\n\n(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to or in relation to an AIDS related action against —\n\n(a) the Society or a hospital if, after the Society or the hospital, as the case requires, had taken blood to be supplied for the purpose of being administered to a person or used in the preparation of a blood product to be administered to a person, the Society or the hospital had reasonable grounds for believing that —\n\n(i) a statement in the declaration made by the donor of that blood under the Transmissible Diseases Regulations might be false or misleading; or\n\n(ii) that blood or blood product might contain AIDS,\n\nand the Society or the hospital did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that that blood or blood product was not administered to a person; or\n\n(b) any employee or person referred to in subsection (1)(a)(ii) if, after the Society or the hospital concerned or that employee or person had taken blood to be supplied for the purpose of being administered to a person or used in the preparation of a blood product to be administered to a person, that employee or person had reasonable grounds for believing that —\n\n(i) a statement in the declaration made by the donor of that blood under the Transmissible Diseases Regulations might be false or misleading; or\n\n(ii) that blood or blood product might contain AIDS,\n\nand that employee or person did not —\n\n(iii) report those grounds to the Society or that hospital; and\n\n(iv) take all reasonable steps to ensure that that blood or blood product was not administered to a person.\n\n(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, if in the opinion of not less than 2 medical practitioners —\n\n(a) the condition of a person was such that he was likely to die unless blood or blood products was or were administered to him; and\n\n(b) it was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances to obtain all or any of the blood or blood products required for administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) from blood or blood products in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i)(B) had been carried out with a negative result,\n\nthe administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) of any blood or blood products in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i)(B) had not been carried out does not by itself defeat a defence provided by subsection (1).\n\n##### 6. AIDS related actions against people administering blood, defences to\n\n(1) Subject to this section, in an AIDS related action against —\n\n(a) a hospital (in this section called the administering hospital) or other person at whose premises blood supplied by the Society or a hospital, or a blood product derived from blood so supplied, was administered to a patient; or\n\n(b) a medical practitioner or a person acting on behalf of a medical practitioner who administered to a patient, or authorised the administration to a patient of, blood supplied by the Society or a hospital, or a blood product derived from blood so supplied,\n\nit is a defence that the Society or the hospital which supplied that blood, as the case requires —\n\n(c) obtained from the donor of that blood within the 12 hours immediately preceding the donation of that blood a declaration made under the Transmissible Diseases Regulations; and\n\n(d) caused, before that blood was supplied to be administered to a person, or to be used in the preparation of a blood product to be so administered, a sample of that blood to be tested, using such equipment and in accordance with such a method as were then required by good medical practice, for the presence of AIDS, and that the result of that test was negative; and\n\n(e) was not guilty of any negligence or wilful misconduct in respect of the taking or testing of that blood or of the storage, preparation, processing, handling, supplying, labelling or other documenting, or administering of that blood or of the relevant blood product derived from that blood, as the case requires.\n\n(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to or in relation to an AIDS related action against —\n\n(a) the administering hospital or other person referred to in paragraph (a), or a medical practitioner or person referred to in paragraph (b), of that subsection if the administering hospital or that other person or that medical practitioner or person was guilty of negligence or wilful misconduct in the storage, handling, labelling or other documenting, or administering of the relevant blood or blood product; or\n\n(b) the administering hospital or other person referred to in subsection (1)(a) if, at any time up to and including the time at which the relevant blood or blood product was administered, the administering hospital or that other person —\n\n(i) had reasonable grounds for believing that that blood or blood product might contain AIDS; and\n\n(ii) had not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that that blood or blood product was not administered to a person;\n\nor\n\n(c) a medical practitioner or person referred to in subsection (1)(b) if, at the time when the relevant blood or blood product was administered, that medical practitioner or person has reasonable grounds for believing that that blood or blood product might contain AIDS.\n\n(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, if in the opinion of not less than 2 medical practitioners —\n\n(a) the condition of a person was such that he was likely to die unless blood or blood products was or were administered to him; and\n\n(b) it was not reasonable practicable in the circumstances to obtain all or any of the blood or blood products required for administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) from blood or blood products in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(d) had been carried out with a negative result,\n\nthe administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) of any blood or blood products in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(d) had not been carried out does not by itself defeat a defence provided by subsection (1).\n\n##### 7. Donors, liability of\n\n(1) No proceedings, civil or criminal, other than criminal proceedings under section 170 of *The Criminal Code* in respect of a declaration made under the Transmissible Diseases Regulations by the donor concerned, lie against a donor by reason only of a person having contracted AIDS from the administration to the person of blood given by, or of a blood product derived wholly or partly from blood given by, the donor.\n\n(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to or in relation to a donor who has been found guilty of an offence under section 170 of *The Criminal Code* in respect of a declaration made by that donor under the Transmissible Diseases Regulations in respect of the giving of the blood concerned.\n\n## Part III — Subsequent limitation of liability\n\n##### 8. AIDS related actions to which this Part applies\n\nThis Part applies only to or in relation to an AIDS related action arising out of —\n\n(a) the administration on or after the day fixed by proclamation for the purposes of section 4 to a person of —\n\n(i) blood supplied by the Society or a hospital; or\n\n(ii) a blood product derived from blood referred to in subparagraph (i);\n\nor\n\n(b) the involvement on or after the day referred to in paragraph (a) of a person in the taking, testing, preparation, processing, handling, supplying or administering of blood or a blood product referred to in that paragraph.\n\n##### 9. AIDS related actions against Society, hospitals etc., defences to\n\n(1) Subject to this section, in an AIDS related action against —\n\n(a) the Society or a hospital it is a defence that —\n\n(i) the Society or the hospital, as the case requires —\n\n(A) obtained from the donor of the relevant blood within the prescribed period immediately preceding the donation of that blood a donor declaration; and\n\n(B) caused, before the relevant blood was supplied to be administered to a person, or to be used in the preparation of a blood product to be administered to a person, a sample of that blood to be tested, using approved equipment and in accordance with an approved method, for the presence of AIDS, and a certificate in an approved form purporting to be signed or initialled by an approved person and stating that the result of that test was negative was attached to the container in which the relevant blood or blood product was contained;\n\nand\n\n(ii) neither the Society nor the hospital, as the case requires, nor any employee of or in, or person working without payment for, the Society or the hospital nor any other person who took blood from a donor on behalf of the Society or the hospital was guilty of any negligence or wilful misconduct in respect of the taking, testing or certification of the relevant blood or of the storage, preparation, processing, handling, supplying, labelling or other documenting, or administering of that blood or of the relevant blood product derived from that blood, as the case requires;\n\nor\n\n(b) an employee or person referred to in paragraph (a)(ii) it is a defence that that employee or person was not guilty of any negligence or wilful misconduct in respect of the taking, testing or certification of the relevant blood or of the storage, preparation, processing, handling, supplying, labelling or other documenting, or administering of that blood or of the relevant blood product derived from that blood, as the case requires.\n\n(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to or in relation to an AIDS related action against —\n\n(a) the Society or a hospital if, after the Society or the hospital, as the case requires, had taken blood to be supplied for the purposes of being administered to a person or used in the preparation of a blood product to be administered to a person, the Society or the hospital had reasonable grounds for believing that —\n\n(i) a statement in the donor declaration made by the donor of that blood might be false or misleading; or\n\n(ii) that blood or blood product might contain AIDS,\n\nand the Society or the hospital did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that that blood or blood product was not administered to a person; or\n\n(b) any employee or person referred to in subsection (1)(a)(ii) if, after the Society or the hospital concerned or that employee or person had taken blood to be supplied for the purpose of being administered to a person or used in the preparation of a blood product to be administered to a person, that employee or person had reasonable grounds for believing that —\n\n(i) a statement in the donor declaration made by the donor of that blood might be false or misleading; or\n\n(ii) that blood or blood product might contain AIDS,\n\nand that employee or person did not —\n\n(iii) report those grounds to the Society or that hospital; and\n\n(iv) take all reasonable steps to ensure that that blood or blood product was not administered to a person.\n\n(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, if in the opinion of not less than 2 medical practitioners —\n\n(a) the condition of a person was such that he was likely to die unless blood or blood products was or were administered to him; and\n\n(b) it was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances to obtain all or any of —\n\n(i) the blood required for administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) from blood in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i)(B) had been carried out with a negative result; or\n\n(ii) the blood products required for administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) from blood products —\n\n(A) to the containers or outer containers of which were attached labels endorsed in accordance with section 10(1)(c); or\n\n(B) in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i)(B) had been carried out with a negative result,\n\nthe administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) of the blood or blood products to the containers or outer containers of which were not attached labels endorsed in accordance with section 10(1)(c) or in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i)(B) had not been carried out, as the case requires, does not by itself defeat a defence provided by subsection (1).\n\n[Section 9 amended: No. 11 of 2016 s. 285(4).]\n\n##### 10. AIDS related actions against people administering blood, defences to\n\n(1) Subject to this section, in an AIDS related action against —\n\n(a) a hospital (in this section called the administering hospital) or other person at whose premises blood supplied by the Society or a hospital, or a blood product derived from blood so supplied, was administered to a patient; or\n\n(b) a medical practitioner or a person acting on behalf of a medical practitioner who administered to a patient, or authorised the administration to a patient of, blood supplied by the Society or a hospital or a blood product derived from blood so supplied,\n\nit is a defence that —\n\n(c) in the case of a blood product, at the time when the relevant blood product was administered there was endorsed on a label attached —\n\n(i) to the container in which that blood product was contained; or\n\n(ii) if the container in which that blood product was contained was itself contained within an outer container, to the outer container,\n\na statement in an approved form; or\n\n(d) the Society or the hospital which supplied that blood, as the case requires —\n\n(i) obtained from the donor of that blood within the prescribed period immediately preceding the donation of that blood a donor declaration; and\n\n(ii) caused, before that blood was supplied to be administered to a person, or to be used in the preparation of a blood product to be so administered, a sample of that blood to be tested, using approved equipment and in accordance with an approved method, for the presence of AIDS, and a certificate in an approved form purporting to be signed or initialled by an approved person and stating that the result of that test was negative is attached to the container or outer container in which that blood or blood product was contained; and\n\n(iii) was not guilty of any negligence or wilful misconduct in respect of the taking, testing or certification of that blood or of the storage, preparation, processing, handling, supplying, labelling or other documenting, or administering of that blood or of the relevant blood product derived from that blood, as the case requires.\n\n(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to or in relation to an AIDS related action against —\n\n(a) the administering hospital or other person referred to in paragraph (a), or a medical practitioner or person referred to in paragraph (b), of that subsection if the administering hospital or that other person or that medical practitioner or person was guilty of negligence or wilful misconduct in the storage, handling, labelling or other documenting, or administering of the relevant blood or blood product; or\n\n(b) the administering hospital or other person referred to in subsection (1)(a) if, at any time up to and including the time at which the relevant blood or blood product was administered, the administering hospital or that other person —\n\n(i) had reasonable grounds for believing that that blood or blood product might contain AIDS; and\n\n(ii) had not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that that blood or blood product was not administered to a person;\n\nor\n\n(c) a medical practitioner or person referred to in subsection (1)(b) if, at the time when the relevant blood or blood product was administered, that medical practitioner or person had reasonable grounds for believing that that blood or blood product might contain AIDS.\n\n(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, if in the opinion of not less than 2 medical practitioners —\n\n(a) the condition of a person was such that he was likely to die unless blood or blood products was or were administered to him; and\n\n(b) it was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances to obtain all or any of —\n\n(i) the blood required for administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) from blood in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(d)(ii) had been carried out with a negative result; or\n\n(ii) the blood products required for administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) from blood products —\n\n(A) to the containers or outer containers of which were attached labels endorsed in accordance with subsection (1)(c); or\n\n(B) in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(d)(ii) had been carried out with a negative result,\n\nthe administration to the person referred to in paragraph (a) of any blood or blood products to the containers or outer containers of which were not attached labels endorsed in accordance with subsection (1)(c) or in respect of which the testing referred to in subsection (1)(d)(ii) had not been carried out, as the case requires, does not by itself defeat a defence provided by subsection (1).\n\n##### 11. Donor declarations, before whom to be made\n\n(1) A donor declaration shall be made by a donor, who is hereby permitted to make the donor declaration, before a person who is —\n\n(a) authorised to permit a statutory declaration to be made before him; or\n\n(b) a designated officer, or the delegate of a designated officer, for the purposes of the *Human Tissue and Transplant Act 1982*; or\n\n(c) a medical practitioner; or\n\n(d) a staff member of the blood transfusion service operated by the Society; or\n\n(e) registered under the *Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia)* in the nursing profession whose name is entered on Division 1 of the Register of Nurses kept under that Law as a registered nurse and is employed for the taking of tissue,\n\nwhich person is hereby authorised to permit that declaration to be made before him and shall sign it, date it and endorse on it the time at which it was made and the category specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) to which he belongs.\n\n(2) In subsection (1)(e) —\n\n  tissue includes —\n\n(a) organ or part of; or\n\n(b) substance extracted from, or from a part of,\n\nthe human body and intended for therapeutic use.\n\n[Section 11 amended: No. 50 of 2006 Sch. 3 cl. 1; No. 35 of 2010 s. 37; No. 4 of 2018 s. 101.]\n\n##### 12. Donors, liability of\n\n(1) No proceedings, civil or criminal, other than criminal proceedings under section 170 of *The Criminal Code* in respect of a donor declaration made by the donor concerned, lie against a donor by reason only of a person having contracted AIDS from the administration to a person of blood given by, or of a blood product derived wholly or partly from blood given by, the donor.\n\n(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to or in relation to a donor who has been found guilty of an offence under section 170 of *The Criminal Code* in respect of a donor declaration made by that donor in respect of the giving of the blood concerned.\n\n##### 13. Evidentiary provisions for certain AIDS related actions\n\nIn an AIDS related action referred to in section 9 or 10 —\n\n(a) a certificate purporting to be signed by the person in charge of the laboratory at which a sample of blood was tested and stating that —\n\n(i) that sample was tested, using approved equipment and in accordance with an approved method, for the presence of AIDS; and\n\n(ii) the results of the test referred to in paragraph (a) specified in that certificate were obtained,\n\nis evidence of the matters so stated and of the facts on which they are based; or\n\n(b) an endorsed statement referred to in section 10(1)(c) is evidence of the matters stated in that endorsed statement and of the facts on which those matters are based.\n\n##### 14. Regulations\n\nThe Governor may make regulations prescribing all matters that are required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed, or are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for giving effect to this Act and, in particular, prescribing, or adopting with or without modifications from the Transmissible Diseases Regulations, the form of the declaration to be made by a donor for the purposes of this Part.\n\n![dline]()\n\nNotes\n\nThis is a compilation of the *Blood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985* and includes amendments made by other written laws. For provisions that have come into operation, and for information about any reprints, see the compilation table.\n\nCompilation table\n\n| **Short title** | **Number and year** | **Assent** | **Commencement** |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| *Blood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985* | 88 of 1985 | 4 Dec 1985 | 30 Jun 1985 (see s. 2) |\n| *Blood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Amendment Act 1987* | 52 of 1987 | 30 Oct 1987 | 30 Jun 1985 (see s. 3) |\n| *Hospitals Amendment Act 1994* s. 18 | 103 of 1994 | 11 Jan 1995 | 3 Feb 1995 (see s. 2 and *Gazette* 3 Feb 1995 p. 333) |\n| **Reprint 1: The *Blood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985* as at 1 Aug 2003** (includes amendments listed above) | | | |\n| *Workers’ Compensation Reform Act 2004* s. 156 and 174 | 42 of 2004 | 9 Nov 2004 | s. 174: 4 Jan 2005 (see s. 2 and *Gazette* 31 Dec 2004 p. 7131);   s. 156: 14 Nov 2005 (see s. 2 and *Gazette* 31 Dec 2004 p. 7131 and 17 Jun 2005 p. 2657);   Proclamation published 31 Dec 2004 p. 7131 revoked para (b) (see *Gazette* 17 Jun 2005 p. 2657) |\n| *Nurses and Midwives Act 2006* Sch. 3 cl. 1 | 50 of 2006 | 6 Oct 2006 | 19 Sep 2007 (see s. 2 and *Gazette* 18 Sep 2007 p. 4711) |\n| *Medical Practitioners Act 2008* Sch. 3 cl. 6 | 22 of 2008 | 27 May 2008 | 1 Dec 2008 (see s. 2 and *Gazette* 25 Nov 2008 p. 4989) |\n| *Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010* Pt. 5 Div. 7 | 35 of 2010 | 30 Aug 2010 | 18 Oct 2010 (see s. 2(b) and *Gazette* 1 Oct 2010 p. 5075‑6) |\n| **Reprint 2: The *Blood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985* as at 21 Sep 2012** (includes amendments listed above) | | | |\n| *Health Services Act 2016* s. 285 | 11 of 2016 | 26 May 2016 | 1 Jul 2016 (see s. 2(b) and *Gazette* 24 Jun 2016 p. 2291) |\n| *Public Health (Consequential Provisions) Act 2016* Pt. 3 Div. 5 and Pt. 5 Div. 2 | 19 of 2016 | 25 Jul 2016 | Pt. 3 Div. 5: 24 Jan 2017 (see s. 2(1)(c) and *Gazette* 10 Jan 2017 p. 165);   Pt. 5 Div. 2: 20 Sep 2017 (see s. 2(1)(c) and *Gazette* 19 Sep 2017 p. 4880) |\n| *Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Amendment Act 2018* s. 101 | 4 of 2018 | 19 Apr 2018 | 1 Dec 2018 (see s. 2(d) and *Gazette* 13 Nov 2018 p. 4427‑8) |\n| *Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023* s. 709 | 21 of 2023 | 24 Oct 2023 | 1 Jul 2024 (see s. 2(d) and SL 2024/34 cl. 2) |\n\n\nOther notes\n\n1 Day fixed is 15 September 1986 (see *Gazette* 12 Sep 1986 p. 3343).\n\nDefined terms\n\n*[This is a list of terms defined and the provisions where they are defined. The list is not part of the law.]*\n\n**Defined term Provision(s)**\n\nadministering hospital 6(1), 10(1)\n\nAIDS 3\n\nAIDS related action 3\n\napproved 3\n\nblood product 3\n\nChief Health Officer 3\n\nDepartment 3\n\ndonor 3\n\ndonor declaration 3\n\nhospital 3\n\ninjury 3A(2)\n\nmedical practitioner 3\n\nSociety 3\n\ntissue 11(2)\n\nTransmissible Diseases Regulations 3\n\nworker 3A(2)\n\n© State of Western Australia 2024.\n\nThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0). To view relevant information and for a link to a copy of the licence, visit www.legislation.wa.gov.au.\n\nAttribute work as: © State of Western Australia 2024.\n\nBy Authority: GEOFF O. LAWN, Government Printer\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Act remains focused on the original purpose: limiting liability for transmission of AIDS through transfused blood and blood products. Amendments over time have modernised terminology, added cross‑references to newer public health and health practitioner laws, introduced formal approval and certification requirements for post‑proclamation supplies (Part III), and clarified that the Act does not affect workers’ compensation liabilities (s 3A). These changes refine and update the regime but do not extend the Act materially beyond its original subject matter."},"complexity_factors":["Two time‑based regimes (Part II for 30 June 1985–pre‑proclamation; Part III for on/after proclamation day) with different requirements","Approximately 17 defined terms used throughout (AIDS; AIDS related action; approved; donor; donor declaration; Society; hospital; medical practitioner; Chief Health Officer; Transmissible Diseases Regulations; etc.)","Multiple cross‑references to other Acts (Public Health Act 2016; Health Services Act 2016; Human Tissue and Transplant Act 1982; Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA); Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023; Criminal Code)","Layered conditional defences with nested exceptions (defence available if procedures followed and no negligence, but exceptions where reasonable grounds to suspect contamination or donor deceit)","Administrative approvals and discretionary standards (\"approved\" equipment/method/person; Governor‑made regulations)","Evidentiary rules creating presumed evidence (lab certificates and endorsed labels)","Special emergency carve‑outs requiring certification by two medical practitioners","Donor immunity coupled with a specific criminal exception (offence under Criminal Code s 170)","Regulatory dependence (forms, prescribed periods and detailed processes left to regulations)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this law does (mechanically)**\n\n- The Act creates statutory defences that limit civil liability (and, in limited ways, criminal liability) for organisations and people involved in blood transfusion if a recipient later contracts AIDS (defined to include the virus and antibodies) from that blood.  The main protected actors are the Australian Red Cross Society (the “Society”), hospitals, employees and people who take, test, prepare, process, handle, supply or administer blood or blood products. (See definitions and Parts II–III generally; s 3; ss 5–6; ss 9–10.)\n\n- Protection is conditional. To rely on the defence the supplier or administering party must have followed specified steps immediately before donation and before supply or administration — for example, obtaining a donor declaration within a prescribed time, testing a sample of the blood using the required equipment and method, and (for actions after the date fixed by proclamation) attaching a certificate or an approved label to the container. If those steps were properly performed and there was no negligence or wilful misconduct, the statutory defence applies. (See s 5(1)(a)(i)(A)–(B); s 9(1)(a)(i)(A)–(B); s 10(1)(c)–(d).)\n\n- The Act distinguishes two time periods: an initial period (Part II) covering donations given between 30 June 1985 and the proclamation day fixed under s 4, and a subsequent regime (Part III) that applies to donations on or after that proclamation day. The subsequent regime introduces more formalised requirements (for example, “approved” equipment, methods, approved persons and prescribed form certificates/labels). (See ss 4 and 8; compare ss 5–6 with ss 9–10.)\n\n- Donors are generally protected from civil or criminal proceedings that arise only because someone contracted AIDS from blood they donated, except that a donor can be prosecuted under the Criminal Code for giving a false declaration. (See ss 7 and 12.)\n\n- The Act does not remove a worker’s entitlement under the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023: liabilities to pay compensation or other workers’ benefits for a worker infected while employed are unaffected. (See s 3A.)\n\n- The Act makes lab test certificates and endorsed labels admissible as evidence of the matters they state. The Governor may make regulations to prescribe the detailed forms and processes. (See s 13; s 14.)\n\n**Who it affects**\n\n- Primary beneficiaries of the statutory defences: the Australian Red Cross Society, public and private hospitals, their employees and agents, and medical practitioners involved in collecting, testing, supplying or administering blood and blood products. (See ss 3, 5–6, 9–10.)\n\n- People who receive transfusions and their dependants or estates who wish to sue after contracting AIDS — their ability to recover depends on proving negligence, wilful misconduct, or that the supplier or administrator knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect contamination and still failed to act. (See ss 5(1)(a)(ii); 5(2); 9(1)(a)(ii); 9(2).)\n\n- Donors, who are largely shielded from civil suits based solely on transmission, but may face criminal prosecution for false declarations under s 170 of the Criminal Code. (See ss 7 and 12.)\n\n- Regulators and the Chief Health Officer, who have roles in approving methods, equipment and persons and in enabling regulations and Transmissible Diseases Regulations to be adopted or applied. (See s 3 definitions; s 14.)\n\n**Why it matters (official purpose and practical consequences)**\n\n- The Act’s stated purpose is to limit liability arising from the transfusion transmission of AIDS (title and long title; s 3 definitions). That legal protection was intended to recognise the technical and medical uncertainties around blood-borne infection risk at the time and to set a baseline: if providers followed prescribed procedures they would not be automatically liable.\n\n- Practical trade-offs and incentives: the Act reduces legal risk for blood suppliers and hospitals when they comply with the prescribed steps (obtaining declarations, testing, certification and labelling). That lowers the litigation and indemnity exposure of blood services and hospitals (ss 5, 9–10). In exchange, claimants face a higher factual and legal hurdle to obtain compensation: they must establish negligence or wilful misconduct, or that the supplier or administrator had reasonable grounds to suspect contamination and failed to take reasonable steps (ss 5(1)(a)(ii), 5(2); ss 9(1)(a)(ii), 9(2)).\n\n- Costs, compliance burden and operational effects: hospitals and the Society must maintain processes for obtaining donor declarations (within the time limits in the Act or regulations), for testing blood with approved equipment and methods, for certification and labelling, and for record-keeping to ensure the statutory defences are available in litigation. Those activities impose operational costs and require administrative systems and competent staff. (See ss 9–11; s 14.)\n\n- Implementation and discretion risks: the Act depends on delegated approvals and standards (“approved equipment”, “approved method”, “approved person”, and regulations) and on judicial assessment of negligence or wilful misconduct. That creates implementation choices for health authorities (what tests and procedures to approve) and scope for litigation about whether the steps taken met the statutory standard. (See definitions in s 3 and provisions in ss 9–10 and s 14.)\n\n- Emergency exception: the Act preserves a narrowly framed clinical discretion where two medical practitioners certify that a patient would likely die unless blood/blood products were given and it was not reasonably practicable to obtain blood that met the testing/label requirements. In that case, administering untested or unlabelled blood does not by itself defeat the statutory defence. This preserves clinical judgement in life‑threatening situations but requires the opinions of two practitioners. (See ss 5(3), 6(3), 9(3), 10(3).)\n\n**Concrete mechanisms that change behaviour**\n\n- Who pays: where the statutory defence applies, the affected hospitals/Society (and their employees) are insulated from damages claims; injured recipients may bear uncompensated loss unless they prove an exception or negligence. (See ss 5, 9–10.)\n\n- Who decides: courts decide whether the statutory conditions and exceptions apply; the Chief Health Officer and Governor (via regulations) decide approved equipment/methods and the form and timing of donor declarations. (See s 3 definitions; s 14.)\n\n- Incentive effects: the Act encourages institutions to document compliance (declarations, testing, certificates, labels) and to avoid negligence; it reduces insurance/litigation exposure when formal processes are followed, but shifts the evidentiary burden onto claimants. (See ss 9, 10, 13.)\n\n**Areas of implementation friction or uncertainty**\n\n- Disputes over what counts as negligence or wilful misconduct in complex lab and handling processes.\n\n- Disagreements about whether equipment, methods and persons were properly “approved” or whether certificates/labels meet the required form.\n\n- Administrative cost of timely donor declarations and record-keeping to maintain the defence in court.\n\n**Bottom line**\n\nThis Act sets out a conditional statutory scheme that limits the civil liability of blood suppliers, hospitals and their staff for transfusion transmission of AIDS if they followed prescribed donor-declaration, testing, certification and labelling procedures. It balances reduced legal exposure for blood services against a higher evidentiary burden on transfusion recipients who claim injury, while preserving workers’ compensation claims and a narrow clinical emergency exception. (See ss 3, 5–6, 7, 9–13; s 3A.)"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The original 1985 Act was narrowly focused on limiting liability for AIDS transmission during a specific historical window (the early AIDS crisis). However, the scope has expanded through amendments: (1) Section 3A was added in 1987 and repeatedly updated (most recently in 2023) to carve out workers compensation, creating an increasingly complex interaction with employment law; (2) Definitions have been updated to reference modern statutes (Public Health Act 2016, Health Practitioner Regulation National Law), extending the Act's operation into contemporary health regulation frameworks; (3) The nursing profession was added to authorised witnesses for donor declarations in 2006, broadening who can administer the scheme; (4) The Act remains in force despite AIDS/HIV now being treatable, meaning a temporary crisis-era measure has become a permanent feature of Western Australian health law, now covering blood donation practices far beyond the original 1985-1986 emergency context."},"complexity_factors":["Bipartite temporal structure with different rules for pre- and post-15 September 1986 (Parts II and III largely mirror each other with subtle differences)","14 defined terms in section 3, including nested definitions (e.g., 'AIDS related action' has 3 sub-paragraphs with their own sub-sub-paragraphs)","Extensive cross-referencing to other statutes: Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023, Public Health Act 2016, Health Services Act 2016, Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA), Criminal Code, Human Tissue and Transplant Act 1982, and Transmissible Diseases Regulations","Multiple layers of conditional defences with exceptions to those defences (e.g., section 5(1) provides defences, section 5(2) creates exceptions, section 5(3) creates an exception to the exception for emergencies)","Dual liability frameworks — one for blood collection organisations (Society/hospitals) and separate but similar provisions for those administering blood (sections 5/9 vs 6/10)","Evidentiary provisions in section 13 creating statutory presumptions about laboratory certificates","Regulation-making power in section 14 that delegates substantive content (forms, methods, equipment standards) to subordinate legislation","Amendment history showing 9 amending acts since 1985, requiring reconciliation of multiple versions"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this law does:**\n\nThis Western Australian law protects blood donation services, hospitals, doctors, and blood donors from being sued if someone contracts HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion or blood product — **but only if they followed proper testing and screening procedures**.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n\n- **The Australian Red Cross Society** (which runs blood donation services)\n- **Hospitals** (both public and private)\n- **Medical practitioners** (doctors) and their staff\n- **Blood donors** — they generally cannot be sued for unknowingly donating infected blood\n- **Patients** who receive blood transfusions — they lose the right to sue in certain circumstances\n\n**How it works:**\n\nThe law creates a two-tier system based on when the blood was donated:\n\n**Part II (30 June 1985 to 14 September 1986):** During this early period of the AIDS crisis, blood services and hospitals have a defence against lawsuits if they:\n- Got a declaration from the donor about their health status\n- Tested the blood for AIDS using \"good medical practice\" standards at the time\n- Weren't negligent or reckless\n\n**Part III (from 15 September 1986 onwards):** Stricter rules apply. Blood services must:\n- Use government-approved testing equipment and methods\n- Attach certificates to blood containers proving negative test results\n- Follow more formal \"donor declarations\" (witnessed by authorised people like doctors or nurses)\n\n**Key protections for donors:**\n- Donors cannot be sued civilly or criminally just because someone got AIDS from their blood\n- **Exception:** If the donor lied on their health declaration (a criminal offence under the Criminal Code), they lose this protection\n\n**Important limits:**\n- The protection disappears if anyone had **reasonable grounds to believe** the blood might be infected and didn't stop it being used\n- Workers compensation claims are completely excluded — this law doesn't affect employees who get AIDS through their job\n- There's an emergency exception: if two doctors agree a patient will die without blood immediately, and tested blood isn't available, using untested blood doesn't automatically remove the legal defence\n\n**Why it matters:**\n\nThis law was passed during the height of the 1980s AIDS crisis when blood screening was still developing. It strikes a balance between:\n- **Protecting the blood supply system** from crippling lawsuits that might discourage donation services\n- **Protecting patients** by requiring proper testing and allowing lawsuits when there's negligence or recklessness\n\nIt reflects a policy choice that society benefits more from maintaining a viable blood donation system than from allowing unlimited litigation over what was, at the time, an emerging and poorly understood disease."},"summary":{"complexity_score":1,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Unable to assess whether the scope changed from the original intent — no legislative text, explanatory memorandum, or amendment history was provided in the supplied content."},"complexity_factors":["No legislative text was available for review — only a broken page error message was provided","Complexity cannot be meaningfully assessed without the actual statutory content","Score of 1 reflects absence of data, not simplicity of the underlying Act"],"plain_english_summary":"**No usable legislation content is available for analysis.**\n\nThe page that was meant to contain the *Blood Donation (Limitation of Liability) Act 1985* (WA) returned an error — the content has moved or is unavailable on the Western Australian legislation website.\n\n**What we can infer from the title alone:**\nThis Act likely limits the legal liability (i.e. reduces or caps the legal responsibility) of organisations or individuals involved in blood donation — such as the Red Cross Blood Service or hospitals — when something goes wrong with donated blood (e.g. a recipient contracts a disease). Such laws were common in the mid-1980s before comprehensive blood screening was widely available.\n\n**Bottom line:** No actual legislative text was provided, so no meaningful legal analysis can be performed. If you need this Act, visit the [Parliamentary Counsel's Office website](https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au) directly and search for the Act by name."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/blood-donation-limitation-of-liability-act-1985","history":"/api/acts/blood-donation-limitation-of-liability-act-1985/history","analysis":"/api/acts/blood-donation-limitation-of-liability-act-1985/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/blood-donation-limitation-of-liability-act-1985/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/blood-donation-limitation-of-liability-act-1985/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/blood-donation-limitation-of-liability-act-1985/documents"}}